Mothers of Intention — Aftermath of Tucson Edition

Wed, January 12, 2011

Mothers of Intention

In the days since the massacre in Tucson and attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, many people have been weighing in on the tragedy.  Here are a few thoughtful posts worthy of your time:

Ilina from Dirt and Noise takes a look at all the ways violence has permeated our society.  No one’s got a corner on using the language of violence in inappropriate ways.

Having said that, Sarah Palin should have reconsidered her retort to those who, myself included, believe that when we use the language of violence we own a piece of creating a generally violent society.  Robin Marty at Care2 writes about Palin’s invocation of the controversial term “blood libel,” not to mention “dueling pistols.”

Linda Lowen talks about the politics of nastiness and our own personal responsibility in how we allow others to treat us and talk about us, including in the political realm.

And Caroline at Morningside Mom is talking about our freedoms and our frustrations living in a free society.

Discuss.

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts:

, , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Mothers of Intention — Aftermath of Tucson Edition”

  1. ilinap Says:

    I think it’s a matter of how our perspective and paradigms have shifted, how our culture is so desensitized to violence and derision. Take manners as an example: There was a time we wrote thank you notes, dressed up in hats and gloves, and various other things that would be considered old fashioned now (in an outdated, not quaint, way). Our cultural paradigm has shifted, and it’s time we take note of it and try to shift it back. While a matter of manners might not be a big deal (I only use it as an example.), a matter of violence is a big deal.

  2. Alicia Says:

    I actually just got the chance to watch the video where she denounces assumably, the Left, news organizations and pundits for trying to make the connection between the type of heated political rhetoric that she uses to fire up her base, and what happened on Saturday in AZ. She HAS to come out and do damage control if she wants to run in 2012.

    It is so very obvious that there has been a ratcheting up of this type of rhetoric BECAUSE many Americans are very angry over things like health care reform and illegal immigration, etc. Some politicians feed into that anger and just as Obama has said on many occasions, many people do not realize that on Capitol Hill the 2 parties hash out their differences, but come 5pm, they all get together and go out for a drink. At the end of the day, our elected officals are hanging out, but these same Americans are still angry over yesterday’s issues. I totally agree that this type of irresponsible language gives voice to what is already stewing beneath the surface.

  3. Daisy Says:

    I wonder who wrote Palin’s speech. I can’t imagine her, the non-reader, using the term blood libel as a natural part of her vocabulary. Did that person, that writer, realize what the term meant and what the fall-out might be?

  4. The Propheteer Says:

    Sarah Palin has tried to turn the tables on everyone unsuccessfully. I completely agree with you Daisy I also want to know who wrote that speech for her.

  5. deborah l quinn Says:

    The speech wasn’t her usual word hash–a sure sign someone else wrote it–but I fear that “blood libel” may be a phrase she knows from church and all the bible thumping she’s familiar with (remember the video that circulated when she was VP Nom, in which she talked about Alaska being the haven when the Rapture comes? ) — so she might be familiar with the phrase itself, even if she’s utterly oblivious to its historical implications. Her trite greeting-card sentiments and empty parroting stands in stark relief to Obama’s brilliant, moving, eloquent–SELF-WRITTEN–eulogy in Tucson the other night. Each of them, she with her violent rhetoric and then this bland emptiness, and he with his masterful invocations, demonstrate the power of language. For ill and for good.


Leave a Reply